Whence Univalent Ambivalence? From the Anticipation of Conflicting Reactions

Abstract

The subjective experience of ambivalence results from possessing both positive and negative reactions. Why do individuals sometimes experience ambivalence when they possess only positive or only negative reactions (i.e., univalent attitudes)? This research advances and provides support for the notion that anticipated conflicting reactions underlie such ambivalence. Anticipated conflicting reactions occur when an individual possesses no, or only a few, manifest conflicting reactions and yet anticipates that there may exist conflicting information of which they are unaware. Support is provided by three experiments in which anticipated conflicting reactions mediated the influence of amount of univalent information on feelings of ambivalence. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences

“…Ambivalence is a central construct in the literature on attitudes, and it has been the focus of a recent resurgence in research interest (e.g., Cavazza & Butera, 2008;Clark et al, 2008;Clarkson, Tormala, & Rucker, 2008;Cowley & Czellar, 2012;DeMarree, Morrison, Wheeler, & Petty, 2011;Hormes & Rozin, 2011;Petty, Tormala, Briñol, & Jarvis, 2006;Priester et al, 2007;Sawicki et al, 2013;Schneider et al, 2013;van Harreveld, Rutjens, et al, 2009;Ziegler, Schlett, Casel, & Diehl, 2012). Although the subjective experience of conflict is important because it often drives ambivalence outcomes (e.g., attitudebehavior correspondence, information seeking), there is a current gap in our understanding of the factors that contribute to this sense of conflict.…”

“…Similarly, anticipating the existence of unknown, attitude incongruent information can also lead to feelings of conflict (Priester, Petty, & Park, 2007). The current research sought to extend the bases of subjective ambivalence to include another form of intrapsychic conflict -between individuals' actual current attitudes and the attitudes they would like to possess.…”

Ambivalence toward a country and consumers’ willingness to buy emblematic brands: The differential predictive validity of objective and subjective ambivalence measures on behavior

“…Of course, this study's results are bounded by the fact that positivity, negativity, and therefore ambivalence were measured and not manipulated; hence, the nature of the data does not allow full control over the context and assessments of causality. With a few exceptions (e.g., Otnes et al 1997), existing research on ambivalence has relied on experimental settings, where participants are presented with information about a new product or attitude object (Jonas et al 1997) or where the context is changed to create more or less ambivalence (Priester et al 2007;Zemborain and Johar 2007). Notwithstanding the limitations, investigating ambivalence outside of the laboratory in naturally occurring situations enhances external validity and adds to the growing body of knowledge on the topic by complementing previous laboratory-based experiments.…”

“…Another computation, the gradual threshold model (GTM) of ambivalence, was proposed by Priester and Petty (1996) as a function of dominant and conflicting reactions, the former referring to whichever of the positive or negative reactions is greater and the latter to whichever is lesser. Since this GTM of ambivalence computation has been found to be superior to all others for inferring the experience of ambivalence (Priester and Petty 1996, see also Priester et al 2007), this model will be used in this research as an indirect, objective measure of ambivalence. Both subjective and objective ambivalence measures will be utilized as recommended by Federico (2006), although, as in previous research, the correlation is expected to be low (between 0.2 and 0.4; Newby- Clark et al 2002;Priester and Petty 1996;Thompson et al 1995).…”

Impact of Attitudinal Ambivalence on Safety Behaviour in Construction

“…However, the path of the impact was still unclear. Existing literature argued that attitudinal ambivalence made behavioural decisions harder to make [42], as well as decreased the consistency of attitude and the confidence of certain behaviour [43] because the ambivalence undermined the persistence, resistance, and information process of attitude.…”